Isherwood

The original title of the film, Saints and Soldiers, doesn't make sense to me. From the start, this film takes a slightly different route than is fashionable for WWII-themed films. That the film doesn't have a staggering budget must be obvious to everyone after a few minutes. Nevertheless, director Ryan Little managed to handle this "flaw." With a minimum of action sequences (I'll talk about the ending later), which should probably be a part of every war film, he managed to subtly remind the audience that the film is set during a war. After a breathtaking (literally) start, the film shifts into a journey through the snowy Ardennes forests, which carries a touch of philosophical atmosphere. Most of the time is occupied by soldiers' conversations about what they are doing in such hell and how to get out of it in one piece. And on top of that, the director is flirting with something else... horror. The inner demons of one of the soldiers, triggered by a traumatic experience, are filmed using the classic devices used by horror film directors. Mysterious figures, mysterious sounds, and the appearance of ghosts. But be warned, the war atmosphere never leaves the film even for a moment, and throughout, it's clear to the audience that one of the heroes simply can't handle it. The atmosphere remains both relaxing and oppressive when the group of advancing soldiers reaches the house of a French widow. And then comes the aforementioned ending, in which everything the director has been saving for the whole film is unloaded on the viewer in the final twenty minutes. A supercharged action flick that in some passages can easily hold its own with its more expensive brethren. Formally, there is nothing to criticize; the director also stood behind the camera, and the recently modern "documentary" style of the film suits it well. J. Bateman's equally impressive score catches the ear with its occasional western motifs. I don't know why, but it suits the film. Saints and Soldiers is a film that shows that even with a small budget it is possible to make an impressive war film, and that cutting it down to less than an hour and a half doesn't hurt either. However, there is a strong risk that it might upset those who prefer two to three-hour epics filled with perfectly arranged action and deep thoughts in the minds of the soldiers and the director.

Russia is a vast country, but just one piece of it, elegantly covered in snow, can make for a beautiful film. I somehow can't decide whether the Russians wanted to show a parody of their own life in Siberia or if I should take this film deadly seriously. I think it’s a bit of both. The infamous vodka flows abundantly, and during the hunting, it's not about the catch but rather about how it will unfold. Well, there's also got to be something to hunt. Prey is about as certain as General Mihaljich taking the cigar out of his mouth. The philosophy of hunting is dissected under the microscope of comical figures, clearly proving that Aristotle only mastered the philosophy of his time, and in Russia... well, anything is possible.

Scott's competing project 1492: Conquest of Paradise = A fight with windmills. Even a more detailed psychologization of the sailor himself didn't help with that.

I expected this film from an American television production to be nothing special, but this is really a bit too much. Perhaps the only thing that makes the film interesting is the somewhat strange subject of a computer virus that affects a living human organism. This idea is neatly wrapped in a package with a huge label: CLICHE! If I had turned it off halfway and gone to bed with the assumption of how it would end, I would have done better because I guessed it perfectly. That I should have expected this? Yes, I was expecting it, but deep down, I was hoping it would turn out differently than I assumed. The protagonists are as boring and dull as two stakes in a fence. Moreover, the script puts even more awkward dialogue in their mouths. Their characters are like something out of a textbook: What character actors shouldn't be like today. Perhaps it would be better to stop cursing the movie and also scold myself for watching it even though I essentially knew what was going to happen. To that there is only one thing left to say: I deserved that...

I was kind of hesitant about how to review this film. In the end, I leaned towards the higher four-star rating. The film has an original theme, but the script and direction are pretty mediocre. It follows a certain formula precisely, so I knew from the beginning where it was heading and what the ending would be. Still, the film managed to be a very pleasant surprise in some moments. It surprised me mainly with its humor. Branding sheep or a pink heart in the crotch area was spot-on. However, the emotional scenes turned out to be a bit of a disaster, saved only by the fantastic actors from sinking into the depths of awkwardness and unintentional humor. You'll like Alan Rickman's grumpy face even if you don't want to. But I've already seen what Josh Hartnett was doing in several movies. The film would rightly deserve three stars, but a blissful feeling spread through me after it was over, so I'm going (a little undeservedly) higher.

I could bend over backward, and I still probably wouldn't find any mistakes in Once Upon a Time in America. For almost four hours, Sergio Leone tells us what it means to have a friendship beyond the grave. With an almost unhealthy precision, it closely observes the three-generational clash of men who had no other choice but to do what they did since their youth. Building an empire with all its pleasures and problems. Love, hate, virtue, mistakes, and that friendship... All this in a mesmerizing audiovisual setting. Hypnotic music by Ennio Morricone with a beautifully catchy melody. Long and slow camera "walks." A brilliant shot focuses on a street where a group of boys is crossing, with the iconic Brooklyn Bridge towering in the background, nestled between two buildings. Perfection. Which time period is the best? That's a tough question. Youth, with all its worries, abounds with that childlike look of boys whom the street has forced to grow up all too soon. The central and longest part depicts their built empire during its peak prosperity until the final stage, where the inevitable reckoning of their past actions takes center stage. Leone transitions between these periods subtly and unobtrusively, but always the contrast of period diversity is incredibly beautiful. I have a warm feeling in my heart that I sacrificed four hours for something so spectacular and hard to describe. Master, from the bottom of my heart, thank you...

Maybe this review and commentary will be mean to the film, but I simply see it this way. The film carries a serious message. It carries a message to everyone, encouraging them to see what Colombia is like today. At birth, in addition to the midwives, a gunsmith comes to the cradle and places a pistol in the child's hands. However, this message completely misses its impact due to its incredibly dull execution. Starting with the script, it was clear to me after half an hour how it was going to end. The director's execution deserves a slap to the face. I haven't experienced so much BOREDOM in a single movie in a long time. The film is devoid of any emotional charge. Every scene left me completely indifferent. Both the amusing moments (throwing the hi-fi system out of the window) and the not-so-amusing ones (one corpse next to another). I felt as if someone had sat me down in front of the TV and let me watch a sequence of pictures, forbidding me to smile, grit my teeth, or make a fist. I don't understand where the director was going with this. I looked at my watch more often than at the film. After two seconds, the image of the film hit me in the eyes. I can put up with this sort of thing from the TV movies that air on Sunday nights. The use of a digital camera adds to the authenticity of most films, but here it brings the film down even further. If you want to do it that way, then why not make the film in a documentary style? Why are they trying to be impartial with film at all costs? These so-called "cool" shootouts only made me sick to my stomach. This film heavily depends on how the viewer will react to it. Some may perceive it as "something different." I'm certainly not saying that the film is bad, but I just don't have any sympathy for this style of storytelling.

This film is the first one through which I experienced the work of director Cameron Crowe. I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, but I have a good feeling about Jerry Maguire. Throughout, the film teeters on the thin line between comedy and drama. It also depends on the viewer how they choose to perceive the film. On one hand, I enjoyed the occasional one-liners and acting performances, but on the other, I also followed quite intriguing life stories of people determined to achieve their goals at any cost. Jerry Maguire definitely wanted to take it far. At the end of the film, it is up to the viewer to judge his "success." The film has a slightly different problem, and that is Cameron Crowe's storytelling. Crowe switches tempos. At times, it moves along smoothly, and at times, it disgustingly drags on. Janusz Kamiński's outstanding camera work, especially the amazing tracking shot through the office after Maguire gets fired, is captivating. The OST, composed of more or less familiar songs, certainly won't disappoint and will be pleasing to the ears. Tom Cruise in the lead role is absolutely excellent. To be honest, I liked him even more here than in Magnolia, and that's really saying something. Renée Zellweger is pretty, and she can really act (but I still can't get rid of the Bridget Jones's Diary aftertaste). Jerry Maguire is a film that is definitely worth seeing. Two hours and twenty minutes may seem a bit much, but believe me, the time invested in the film is definitely worth it.

After the not-so-favorably received (but brilliant in my opinion) Gangs of New York, director Martin Scorsese has ventured into slightly more recent history. He tells the story of an extraordinary person in an extraordinary style. A man who can be perceived as either a genius or a madman. You have to choose whether you will admire Howard Hughes for pushing the boundaries of technological and human capabilities or despise him for his obsessively guarded cleanliness or instability in relationships. Martin Scorsese gives you both sides of the story in a unique trip back to the early 1930s and late 1940s. The atmosphere of parties, bars, women, cigarettes, and unique music breathed so strongly on me that it tousled my hair. And in this environment, Leonardo DiCaprio moves with his characteristic elegance. The acting challenge was truly formidable. DiCaprio picked up the thrown gauntlet and, with a performance more than dignified, proved to everyone that he truly knows how to act. The entire film is full of one famous name after another. While I'm not particularly a fan of Cate Blanchett, neither physically nor as an actress, I must reluctantly praise her. Alan Alda as Hughes' main antagonist is absolutely superb. A lot of people fault the film for the story going nowhere at times. I strongly disagree. I attentively watched the entire three hours to see what was happening. Visually, the film is perfect. Some scenes are indelibly etched in my memory. For example, the filming of Hell's Angels or the plane crash between houses in Beverly Hills. Robert Richardson's brilliant cinematography adds the final touch to everything. Not only the period music but also Howard Shore's orchestration perfectly contributed to creating the (already perfect) atmosphere. Everything I've listed here should be enough to give The Aviator four stars, but the film has something that makes me want to give it no less than five. It has soul. The soul that allowed it to live and tell. Thank you, Master.

This film has one problem. And that's the fact that it's utterly bland in all aspects. An investigative, but slightly aged journalist gets hold of a report that puts his life at risk. The idea itself is not a bad one. If you can accept that the terrorists are from Palestine. Director John Bradshaw plays with the film quite artfully and tries to squeeze as much as he can out of the sloppily written script. The density of tension in the atmosphere is at a fairly appealing level, and the storytelling pace has rapid turns, so there's no risk of that thing called boredom. Unfortunately, there are scenes in the film that occasionally don't fit well, such as those involving shooting or "interrogations." It turns the "office" thriller into a bit of an unnecessary bloodbath. Fred Ward's presence in the lead role gives off a certain charisma, and his acting performance is also quite commendable. The ending is surprising on the one hand, but on the other, I had to close my eyes to avoid seeing what I had already seen several times. This is a bland thriller that you’ll forget in a week.